Nebbia v. New York

Mon, 04 Dec 1933 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Grocery Store Rochester, NY

United States

43° 9' 39.708" N, 77° 36' 39.3192" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

531

Petitioner

Nebbia

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

New York

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Hughes Court (1932-1937)

Decided By

Hughes Court (1932-1937)

Opinion

291 U.S. 502 (1934)

Argued

Monday, December 4, 1933

Decided

Monday, March 5, 1934

Facts of the Case

To combat the effects of the Great Depression, New York adopted a Milk Control Law in 1933 which established a board empowered to set a minimum retail price for milk. Nebbia was a store owner who violated the law.

Question

Did the regulation violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

No. In a case which included a lengthy discussion of the Due Process Clause, the Court held that since the price controls were not "arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant" to the policy adopted by the legislature to promote the general welfare, it was consistent with the Constitution. There was nothing "peculiarly sacrosanct" about prices which insulates them from government regulation, argued Justice Roberts.

Home Building & Loan Assoc. v. Blaisdell

Wed, 08 Nov 1933 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Minnosota State Capitol

75 Constitution Avenue St. Paul MN 55155

St. Paul, MN 55155

United States

44° 57' 18.8244" N, 93° 6' 8.0316" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

370

Petitioner

Home Building & Loan Assoc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Blaisdell

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Hughes Court (1932-1937)

Decided By

Hughes Court (1932-1937)

Opinion

290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Argued

Wednesday, November 8, 1933

Decided

Monday, January 8, 1934

Facts of the Case

In 1933, Minnesota enacted the Mortgage Moratorium Law in an effort to combat the economic emergency posed by the Great Depression. The law extended the time period in which borrowers could pay back their debts on property to lenders. The state argued that this was a legitimate use of its police powers since Minnesota faced massive economic difficulties.

Question

Did the Minnesota law violate both Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution which prevents a state from "impairing the Obligation of Contracts" and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Blaisdell, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: US Const. Art 1, Section 10; Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium Law

The Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution. In his opinion, Chief Justice Hughes explored the relationship of emergency to constitutional power, the historical setting in which the Contract Clause was adopted, and its judicial development. Hughes argued that the sanctity of contracts in the United States and the Contract Clause, while important, had never been absolute or meant to be interpreted literally. Thus, in an attempt to "safeguard the vital interests of its people" a state could adopt legislation which had the effect of "modifying or abrogating contracts already in effect." Since the demands of the Great Depression were vital to all of the state's citizens, the law was a legitimate use of Minnesota's police power.

Cases - 1933 term

Nebbia v. New York

Location

Home Building & Loan Assoc. v. Blaisdell

Location